05a60570
04-20-2006
Konstantinos Koliopoulos, Complainant, v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Konstantinos Koliopoulos v. Department of Veterans Affairs
05A60570
04-20-06
.
Konstantinos Koliopoulos,
Complainant,
v.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 05A60570
Appeal No. 01A55991
Agency No. 200H-0604-2005103149
DENIAL
Konstantinos Koliopoulos (complainant) timely requested reconsideration
of the decision in Konstantinos Koliopoulos v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A55991 (March 3, 2006). EEOC Regulations
provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request
to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting
party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the appellate
decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices,
or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
In the underlying complaint, complainant alleged that he was subjected
to retaliatory harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., when on
May 19, 2005, he was told that if he failed to reattach the microphone
accessory to his two-way radio, he would be disciplined. Complainant
timely contacted an EEO Counselor and filed a formal complaint on August
5, 2005. The agency issued a final decision dismissing complainant's
claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1614.107(a)(1).
The agency determined that the alleged incident of harassment was
not sufficiently severe or pervasive to render complainant's work
environment hostile. The agency further found that complainant failed
to demonstrate how he was aggrieved by the agency's action since he
was never ultimately disciplined. Complainant appealed the FAD to
the Commission. In Koliopoulos v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A55991 (March 3, 2006), the Commission affirmed the agency's
final decision. Specifically, the Commission found that complainant
failed to establish that the conduct at issue was sufficiently severe
or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Additionally, the
Commission noted that the fact that complainant filed other complaints
is not material to the issue of whether complainant stated a claim of
retaliatory harassment.
Complainant now requests that we reconsider our previous decision in
this case. In support of his request for reconsideration, he argues that
the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law and the appellate decision will have a substantial
impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. However,
complainant discusses the merits of the claim rather that specifically
identifying the parts of the appellate decision that he believes
constitutes error of material fact or law. Further, complainant did not
specify how the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency. We remind complainant that a
�request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission.�
Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614
(EEO MD-110), 9-17 (November 9, 1999). Moreover, complainant states
that he believes he is being retaliated against for his whistleblowing
activity when he reported to the Occupational Safety and Health Agency.
We note that retaliation based on whistleblowing activity of this nature
is not covered by the statues enforced by the Commission.
After reconsidering the previous decision and the entire record,
the Commission finds that the request fails to meet the criteria of
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to
deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A55991 remains the
Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the
right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District
Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this
decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in
the complaint the person who is the official agency head or department
head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court.
"Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the
local office, facility or department in which you work.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
____04-20-06______________
Date